Isokrates as an observer and commentator upon his times

Isokrates

as an Observer and Commentator

upon His Times

Peter Gordon Lennox

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the Australian National University

“I hereby certify that all the research that I have undertaken to produce this thesis is all my own original work"

Contents

A c k n o w led g m e n ts ₁

A b s tra c t iii

A b b re v ia tio n s V

In tro d u c tio n 1

C h ap ter 1 - P a n e g y rik o s ₁₃

C h ap ter 2 - P la ta ik o s 64

C h ap ter 3 - A rch id am o s 112 C h ap ter 4 - On th e P eace ₁₃₅ C h ap ter 5 - A reo p ag itik o s ₁₉₃ C h ap ter 6 - P h ilip p o s _{2 5 3}

Conclusion 316

ÄcknoxvtednmEnts

This thesis has been a long time in the making, since I was first admitted as a part-time doctoral candidate by the Australian National University in the latter part of 1952. At that time my professional

commitments as a subject teacher in a secondary school did not seem likely to prove too great an obstacle to the completion of this study within the normal limits of a part-time doctoral thesis. However, shortly after that there began a succession of appointments to positions of increasing

professional responsibility which engaged my spare time to a degree which I had never contemplated, when I commenced this study. These

commitments have culminated in my appointment from the

commencement of 1990 as Headmaster of a major independent school, and it has thus been a considerable struggle for me to bring the study to a conclusion over the past eighteen months, even though the bulk of the research and drafting had been completed before January 1990. Professional commitments notwithstanding, I was most, reluctant to relinquish the work which I had done in the faster-moving times at the earlier part of my candidature, and over the last three or four years I have been absolutely determined to see my candidature through to submission of the thesis. In doing so I would wish to emphasize that the support and tolerance of a number of individuals and institutions wlio are

acknowledged below have far exceeded the usual levels necessary to encourage and assist a candidate through a major piece of research such as is required for a doctoral thesis.

Two individuals have been bastions of support and encouragement to me. First, my long-suffering and ever-tolerant supervisor, Dr. D. H. Kelly. Dr. Kelly has guided and advised rne with unfailing tolerance and courtesy, always drawing upon his expert knowledge of the period of Greek history covered in this thesis to point out errors, to cause me to reconsider

judgements and conclusions, and to suggest evidence or material which I may have overlooked. Whatever merit this study may possess in its

completed form owes much to his scholarly guidance. Needless to say, he is not to be held responsible for any errors which may remain, nor is it to be assumed that he would concur with all the judgements and conclusions expressed in this thesis. My second personal debt is of a different nature, but of equal importance and sincerity: my wife, Sandra, has acted as an inestimable source of encouragement, comfort and support over this extended candidature; she has provided an ever-willing audience both to my ideas and to my frustrations in attempting to complete this study, whilst managing my professional duties; her determination that the thesis

should be completed has been no less, and sometimes even more, than my own. Nor should the tolerance and support of our children, James and Clare, pass unmentioned: they have grown from infants to be both in their teenage years whilst this study has been in preparation; whilst I would not suggest that the quality of our family relationship has been compromised by this research, it has been a fact that they have had to share in the inevitable limitations upon other family activities, particularly in vacation periods.

There are also several institutions whose contribution must be recorded with most sincere gratitude. First, I wish to express my deepest appreciation to Peterhouse, Cambridge, to its Master, Professor H. Chadwick, to its Senior Tutor, Dr. P. Pattenden, and to its Fellows, who most generously admitted me as a Fellow Commoner of the college for the Easter Term of

I960, and who most graciously made available to me the splendid

resources of both the college and the University of Cambridge. Similarly I am jointly indebted to the Board of Trustees of The Brisbane Grammar School, who, on my appointment to be Headmaster from 1990, made available in 1959 a term of part-time employment in my final months at my former school, Canberra Grammar School; that invaluable extra time for drafting would not have been possible without the support and co­

operation of my former Headmaster, Mr. T. C. Murray. To both Peterhouse and to those concerned with the two Grammar Schools in Australia I am much indebted for the continuous spells of concentrated time made available tom e in 1955-1959; it has been those two periods which have especially provided the vital opportunity to manage the major drafting of the thesis into its ultimate form.

Finally it remains for me to express my thanks to those who have been responsible at The Australian National University, first for opening the candidature for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy to part-time students, and then for being understanding and tolerant of the needs for extension of my candidacy due to professional demands upon my time which were certainly neither planned nor envisaged when I commenced my study of Isokrates. It has been a long, and sometimes exhausting, path from commencement to submission of this thesis, but it has always been intellectually stimulating; it has thus provided a great enrichment and stimulation to me, by enabling me to continue an academic interest in Classical Studies which would not have been available within my

professional employment; I trust that this experience will not discourage the authorities at the Australian National University from persevering in providing such opportunities to part-time students who are otherwise engaged in full-time employment, even despite the economic and rationalist pragmatism of the current Federal Government. Not all the benefits of such study and research can be directly measured by association with currently perceived political and economic needs.

Abstract

This thesis sets out to provide the first major study in English of the historical significance of the six political discourses of Isokrates

(Panegyrikos. Plataikos. Archidamos. On the Peace, Areopagitikos and Philippos). Each discourse is discussed individually, and each is closely examined with respect to its content and its historical context. For each, Isokrates' perspectives, ideas and judgements, whether idiosyncratic or compatible with other contemporary viewpoints, are assessed against available historical data, for both their historical plausibility and validity.

Throughout the six chapters, which examine each of the political discourses in turn, it is argued that, despite the fact that these works are neither deliberate historical works nor genuine orations, designed for public delivery in the political contexts which constitute the settings, these discourses provide important historical evidence for the history of the times in which each was composed. Each work addresses at least one significant contemporary political issue; other related social, economic and military issues are also drawn into the discussion.

Isokrates' own statements about the serious nature of his advice are shown to afford a more persuasive interpretation of these works than do attempts by some scholars to detach the composition of individual works from their proclaimed historical contexts or to show the works as

principally rhetorical display-pieces.

Isokrates eschewed a personal involvement in political life, either as rhetor or strategos. but his discourses reveal him as astute to contemporary issues of state and of inter-state relations. His commentary and advice upon current affairs was sometimes subtle, sometimes personal, but it cannot reasonably be portrayed as absurd, or even inept. Issues are not approached ideologically, but with a pragmatism not incompatible with a conservative and patriotic Athenian spirit. Isokrates cannot be

characterized as a panhellenic visionary, pursuing persistently a single- minded policy: each discourse addresses its own peculiar situation, and, where apposite, policies are adapted to contemporary circumstances.

Comparison with other evidence indicates that it is unlikely that Isokrates acted through these works as the mouthpiece of an active politician or of a political faction. Furthermore, his views and his advice, whether seen to be shared by others or whether perceived to be more idiosyncratic, can be perceived as a reasonable interpretation of the individual situations. Moreover, the advice appears to have been not entirely without influence, although two quite specific historical events have been mistakenly attributed to the direct influence of Isokrates' advice.

In short, historians of Greek history of the Fourth century B. C. neglect these discourses at their peril.

Abbreviations

References to Greek authors and texts follow the abbreviations of LSJ, where they are not more fully indicated, although the orthography of

abbreviations of Greek names, as in the thesis proper, is that of the Greek originals rather than Latinized spellings, except for some very familiar or distinctive names, such as Thucydides (abbrev. Thuc.). References to

Isokrates' own works are usually indicated only by the number of the work, which are as follows:

1 = To Demonikos 2 = To Nikokles 3 = Nikokles 4 = Panegyrikos 5 = Philippos 6 = Archidamos 7 = Areopagitikos 6 = On the Peace 9 = Evagoras 10 = Helen 11 = Busiris

12 = Panathenaikos 13 = Against the Sophists 14 = Plataikos

15 = Antidosis

16 = Concerning the Team of Horses

17 = Trapezitikos

16 = Against Kallimachos 19 = Aiginetikos

20 = Against Lochites 2 1 = Against Euthunous Letters:

Ep. 1 ToDionysios Ep. 2 To Philip, I Ep. 3 To Philip, II Ep. 4 To Antipater Ep. 5 To Alexander Ep. 6 To Jason's Children Ep. 7 To Tirnotheos

Ep. 6 To the Rulers of the Mytilenaians

Ep. 9 To Archidamos

References to the text of Xenophon are to the Hellenika unless otherwise indicated, and are given simply in numerical form (e g. 3-5-6 = Xen. Hell. 3-5.6).

Titles of periodicals are abbreviated according to the abbreviations used in L’ Annee Philologique, again unless a fuller abbreviation is used.

author's surnam e and to a sh o rt title. However, a n u m ber of frequently cited works, and stan d ard w orks of reference, are m ore severely

abbrevictted in their titles as follows:

Beloch, GG Bengston, SV Blass, AB

Bury & Meiggs, HG

CAII

Cargill, SAL D-K Davies, APF FGrH GHI Griffith, HM Grote, HG Hammond, HG HCT

IG, I I 2 Jebb, AO Laistner, HGW LS] Meyer, GdA RE Ryder, KE Sealey, HGCS

= K. ]. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte

= H. Bengston, Die S taatsverträge des A ltertum s = F. Blass, Die attische B eredsam keit

= J. B. Bury & R. Meiggs, A History of Greece to the Death of iMexander the Great

= Cambridge Ancient History

= J. Cargill, The Second A thenian League

= Diels-Kranz, Die Fragm ente der V orsokratiker = ]. K. Davies, A thenian Propertied Families = F. Jacoby, Die Fragm ente d er griechischen

Historiker

= M. N. Tod, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions

= G. T. Griffith in N. G. L. Hammond & G. T. Griffith, A History of M acedonia. Vol. II

= G. Grote, A History of Greece (in 10 vols.) = N. G. L. Hammond, A History of Greece to

^22 B.C.

= A. W. Gomme, A. A ndrew es Si K. J. Dover, A_ Historical Commentary on Thucydides = Inscriptiones Graecae II. editio m inor

= R. C. Jebb, The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeus

= M. L. W. Laistner, A History of th e Greek World from 470 to 7,2 7, B.C.

= Liddell-Scott-Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th. ed.

= E. Meyer, Geschichte des A ltertum s = H. H. Scullard Si N. G. L. Hammond (edd.),

The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 2nd. ed. = Realencvclopädie d er classischen

A ltertum sw issenschaft, (ed. A. Pauly, G.Wissowa W. Kroll e ta l.), S tuttgart 1694- = T. T. B. Ryder, Koine Eirene

= 1? A Wicfofv <">f thA P itv-states 7 0 0 -'S ^ B.C.

'Introduction

Born in 436/5, Isokrates lived until 336/7,1 so that his adult life spanned the later part of the Peloponnesian War and the greater part of the fourth century, until the victory of the Makedonian king Philip II at

Chaironeia put an end to the aspirations and attempts of various city-states to preside over the affairs of the Greeks. Upon returning to Athens about the time of the restoration of the democracy in 403, Isokrates employed himself as a logographos for about a decade, then turned to the instruction of pupils in the a rt of rhetoric (probably about 392), establishing a school which earned him high reputation and commercial success.2 3 It was not until 361/0 that, as a mature man of about 55, he published Panegyrikos, his first essay into the world of the politics and policy of Athens and other Greek states. In the course of the next 35 years of his long life Isokrates published five more such political discourses, the last being Philippos (in 346)3

Unlike his famous contemporary Demosthenes, and at least some of his own pupils (Timotheos and Androtion are the two who are weU-known as Athenian politicians), Isokrates himself did not engage in the political arena: he records that he lacked both the voice and the self-assurance required for a man in public life (5-61; 12.9-10; Ep.6.7; cf. Ep. 1.9). Despite even the dramatic setting of the Athenian Assembly before which Isokrates portrays himself delivering On the Peace and Areopagitikos. it is generally agreed among modern scholars that these discourses were not intended to

ipion. Hal. Isokr. ch.l; iPlut] Mor. 836 F, 837 F; Diog. Laert. III.3.

2For accounts of Isokrates’ life see R. C. Jebb, The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeos, 2nd. ed.,Vol. II (London, 1893), PP-1-33, and E. Blass, Die Attische

Beredsamkeit, 2nd. ed. (Leipzig, 1892), II, pp. 8-100. Isokrates' father had been a wealthy man, but the family had suffered misfortune at the time of the Peloponnesian Var (see 15-161), a situation vh ich he repaired through his teaching, although he appears to seriously understate his property value in 353 (see 15-155-158):

nevertheless, by 354/3 he and his adoptive son Aphareus had betveen them performed three trierarchies in addition to other unspecified liturgies (15-145):

Isokrates' financial position and the commercial success of his teaching are discussed by J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Eamilies, 600-300 B. C. (Oxford, 1971), pp245-247.

3 In categorizing Panegyrikos, Plataikos, Archidamos, On the Peace,

be delivered in their putative settings, but were designed to be read, and probably also to be read to an audience by others.1

English-speaking scholars in this century have not been sympathetic

to Isokrates in their judgements of his political acumen as we find it expressed in the political discourses. The two most extensive studies of Isokrates and his political discourses this century have been the work of

European scholars.2 * Nonetheless it is remarkable that no major study of

these political discourses has been attempted in English to this date. One reviewer of Bringmann’s monograph summed up Isokrates as “a man of small originality of thought and negligible political influence, interesting as the representative of an attitude or group of attitudes“.3

Nor has Isokrates proved to be a writer whose works have produced ready agreement among modern scholars; as recently as 1967 it was

remarked that “Opinions on Isocrates vary as widely as ever“, and

subsequent publications concerned with the political discourses have done nothing to alter that judgement.4 Indeed, the monographs by Mathieu and

1See H. LI. Hudson-Williams, "Isocrates and Recitations”, CQ 43 (1949), 65-69. Philippes is clearly different, in that it is composed as a len g th y discourse addressed to the Macedonian king; its setting envisages it being read to Philip (see 5.1,25-27 (for the specialized sense in these passages of (errv4 SeiKW^ix (in passive forms) as “reading aloud to an audience" see Hudson-Villiams, p.67f.); cf. also G. Mathieu, Les I dees politiques d'lsocrate (Paris, 1925), p.66; E.G. Turner, Athenian Books in the 5th & 4th centuries B.C. (London, 1952), p. 19; A. Lesky, A History of Greek Literature, 2nd ed.,(1963), trans. J. Willis & C. de Heer (London, 1966), p.586 rem arks that "Recently, however, serious doubts have been cast on the political actuality of Isocrates* speeches”; K. J. Dover, Greek Popular Morality: in the time of Plato and Aristotle (Oxford, 1974), p.9 considers that all the works of Isokrates, excepting the forensic speeches (xvi-xxi), were intended to be read.

2G. Mathieu (see previous note) and K. Bringm ann, Studien zu den politischen Ideen des Isokrates. Hypomnemeta 14 (Göttingen, 1965).

3r. Seager, CR n.s. 16 (1966), 405: Seager summarizes Isokrates* attitudes, which he agrees with Bringm ann that Isokrates held fundam entally unchanged throughout his career, thus: “Isokrates vas always the advocate of peace, autonomy, and freedom among the Greeks and of the 'mixed constitution* at home, always hostile to A thenian imperialism and selfish p o m politics between cities and to 'radical democracy* “.

4H. LI. Hudson-Williams, Eiftv Years (and Twelve) of Classical Scholarship (Oxford, 1968), p263; cf. S. Perlman, “Isocrates* *Philippus* - A R einterpretation“, H istoria6 (1957), 306 (reprinted in Philip and Athens, ed. S. Perlm an [Cambridge,

3

Bringmann demonstrate two quite different approaches to the study of these discourses, based upon somewhat different attitudes to Isokrates as a political adviser. Mathieu perceives Isokrates to be a political visionary who saw the need to move beyond the parameters of political structure which had prevailed in the world of the Greek poleis throughout the fifth and fourth centuries; he sees Isokrates consistently and persistently advancing solutions for the problems which confronted the Greeks, and he overlooks or seeks to explain occasions when Isokrates appears to depart from or fail to maintain this political vision. Thus the separate discourses are all related to, and explained in terms of what Mathieu considers to be Isokrates' political 'blueprint' for Athens and, more importantly, for the Greeks as a whole. Bringmann, on the other hand, although also finding an essential consistency in Isokrates' political thought and ideas, treats the discourses as separate responses to individual political situations;* 1 thus he takes account of individual attitudes in a way which shows their relevance in the particular circumstances which prevailed at the time when a

particular discourse was written. With Bringmann, Isokrates appears more as a genuine political adviser than as Mathieu s political visionary.

Consistency has been an issue which has disturbed some students of Isokrates. For those, such as Mathieu, who would see him as a political theorist, this is undoubtedly important. Those scholars who have been, in essence, sympathetic to these discourses as genuine political tracts have often felt the need to account for, or to deny, what have been perceived as inconsistencies.2 On the other hand, those who have been inclined to an essentially rhetorical interpretation of the discourses have seized upon such

6 (1973), 137-149, and R.A. Moysey, "Isokrates* On the Peace: Rhetorical Exercise of Political Advice?", AJAH 7 (1982), 118-127 (see belov, pp. 148-150).

1P. Cloche ( Isocrate et son temps [Paris, 19631 p 31) notes that, in contrast to Mathieu, T. A. Sinclair (A History of Greek Political Thought [London, 19511 pp. 134-136) held the v ie v that Isokrates vas concerned in these discourses, not ’with expressing broad political ideas, but v ith offering ideas v h ic h ’were related to the immediate political situation at v h ic h the discourse vas directed.

inconsistencies’ as evidence of their view that the works do not have genuine political intent.1

Scholarly opinion upon both the quality of Isokrates’ political judgment and upon the significance of these discourses for the history of the times at which they were published has been widely divergent. For much of the nineteenth century, German scholars were either trenchantly critical in their judgements of Isokrates’ political observations and

proposals or, at best, they allowed him to be an impractical, ivory-towered idealist, remote from, and with little understanding of, the hurly-burly of practical Greek politics. However, about the turn of the century opinion changed, and some scholars placed a considerably higher importance upon the opinions and judgements expressed by Isokrates in his political

discourses; particular interest and emphasis came to be put upon what were regarded as his Panhellenic views, and direct political consequences were alleged for some of his political publications, particularly Panegyrikos and Philippos: in short, Isokrates was regarded as a political publicist of some importance and effect.2 3 Further study did much to discredit the view that Isokrates' works had specific, recognizable, consequences in major political events: neither the Second Athenian Confederacy (377) nor the terms of the League of Corinth (337) should be linked to publications by

Isokrates.3 But if the implementation of Isokrates’ ideas and advice could not be demonstrated to have had such apparent public effect, the notion of him as a publicist remained, and some attention was given to defining the group whose views he was held to be publicizing; this view of Isokrates'

^ e G. Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (London, 1963), pp. 192,1%; and, esp., Harding, "Purpose", pp.143-147.

2For a summary of historical opinion concerning Isokrates’ political vie v s and their influence in the 19th and early 20th century see J. Kessler, Isokrates und die panhellenische Idee (Paderborn, 1911), pp.1-6, and Bringmann, Studien, pp. 13-18; see also CD. Adams, "Recent Views of the Political Influence of Isocrates", CPh 7 (1912), 343-350 for a sympathetic view towards those vho had seen Isokrates' writings as influential upon his contemporaries, although Adams is prudently reserved about claims to find directly recognizable connections between the discourses and the actions of Philip II and his son Alexander. Adams is also troubled by what he regards as inconsistencies both within and between the discourses and by Isokrates' alleged political misjudgment in believing in 346 that there was any alternative to conquest for bringing the major Greek states into harmonious submission to Makedon. The view that Isokrates and his political discourses were largely influential in their time did not disappear quickly: see M. L. ¥ . Laistner. "The Influence of Isocrates' Political Doctrines on Some Fourth-century Men of Affairs", CV 23 (1930), 129-131.

influence upon contemporary politics has been summed up by one critic as:

"the writings of a petit-bourgeois schoolteacher, and [they] are propaganda

for the view s of the conservative opposition in fourth-century politics"1; according to this view Isokrates’ political discourses can be used to deduce the political views of the conservatives in Athenian politics in the fourth

century.

By contrast other scholars in the latter half of the twentieth century

have dismissed these discourses as having little or no historical importance; an extreme view has been to regard them as composed principally as

examples of the rhetorician’s art, written by the master-craftsman to provide illustration and edification for his pupils: thus one critic has

grudgingly assented that the discourses do contain some serious thoughts but “were composed in response to rhetorical rather than political

challenges".2 There is a prima facie objection to this view: it is that the political discourses as a whole do not appear towards the earlier part of Isokrates’ teaching career; rather they are published at considerable

intervals between 3 6 1 /0 and 346, with three of the six being composed in the final two decades of Isokrates' life, when he was already an old man and when he was well-established as a teacher, who presumably had long

5

W arding. “Purpose", p.138. E. Barker, CAR. Vol.VI, pp.512-518, did not support the notion that Isokrates' publications had an y political effect, but, noting v h a t he sees as inconsistencies in Isokrates' expressed vie vs. Barker says that "like a journalist he [Isokrates ] reflected the contem porary v o r Id in all its confusion", comparing him v ith a “real" orator, Demosthenes, v h o seems consistent, precisely because he vas "one-sided" (p.513); cf. also P.G. Neserius, "Isocrates' Political and Social Ideas", International foumal of Ethics 43 (1932/3), 307-328. The v ie v of Isokrates as a spokesman fo r the conservative opposition at Athens, designed to influence contem porary politics has been developed by Bringmann, Studien, see esp. PP-83-95,110-111, from the v o rk of Jaeger ("Date", pp. 442-447); cf. also the v ie v of F. Jacoby (Atthis: the Local Chronicles of Ancient Athens [Oxford, 19491 pp. 74-75,130) that Isokrates' political discourses should be regarded as propaganda for the

conservatives.

K ennedy, The Art of Persuasion, p.199: Kennedy goes on to reach the damning conclusion that "his [Isokrates'] concern for the subject matter is largely incidental" (p.203). Other advocates of a rhetorical ra th e r than political

ago made his views known on political matters as on other things to his pupils and friends and who could hardly have needed by that time to advertise himself or his teaching. On this view, then, the question remains unanswered why Isokrates chose to write at the particular times and on the particular themes that are exhibited in these discourses. Nor can it be objected that the six political discourses which we possess represent only a part of Isokrates' publication in this area; indeed, no-one has attempted to sustain such a case.1 * III Of course, most of Isokrates' other works were

composed in the earlier half of his career, and may well have had a purpose of ‘advertising’ his teaching; however, this thesis confines itself to the political discourses, which share comparable themes and purposes as works and are aimed at changing opinion on Hellenic' matters.

A further aspect of these discourses seems not to support an understanding of them as straightforward rhetorical exempla of deliberative speeches: with the exception of Plataikos. and possibly Areopagitikos. they are all considerably lengthier than the examples of genuine deliberative orations which survive from Demosthenes. On the Peace, set as a speech to the x^thenian Assembly, is more than three times as long as the average Demosthenic deliberative oration, and twice as long as the longest of Demosthenes' deliberative speeches. Panegyrikos and Philippos. though neither is cast as an Assembly oration, are both longer still.2 Isokrates surely did not intend to teach his pupils to speak at such extraordinary length before public gatherings.

10ur surviving corpus of 21 discourses or speeches and 9 letters corresponds closely Tsith the figures given in later antiquity ([Plut. ] Mor.838D speaks of 60 vorks under Isokrates* nam e, but adds that Dionysios considered only 25 of these genuine and Caecilius 28; Photios [cod.159 ] also kn ev of only 21 logoi). To be sure Aristotle vas said to have claimed that copies of Isokrates' forensic speeches vere readily available in the bookshops at Athens (see Dion. Hal., Isokr. ch.18); the reference to Aristotle is made in the context, of a discussion as to vhether Isokrates vrote any forensic speeches (according to his son Aphoreus he vrote none, but one of his pupils, Kephisodoros. maintained that he vrote a small number [Dion. Hal.. Isokr. ch.18 ]). Certainly it is true that no citation from any lost vork of Isokrates has survived, and there is no reference in any of Isokrates* existing vritings vh ich indicates a lost ’work. For discussion of the Isokratean corpus see Blass, AB, II2, pp. 101-107: the only suggestion of a lost ’work concerns a manual on rhetoric. Cf. R. Sealey, A History of the Greek City States ca. 700- 338 B. C. (Berkeley, 1976), p.6, vho speaks of Isokrates* "extant ** speeches.

17.5-There are two other reasons for questioning the notion that Isokrates' political discourses belong essentially to the rhetorical and paedogogical side of Isokrates* life; both are based upon Isokrates* own statements. The first is that, from his initial political discourse through to the end of his life, Isokrates says explicitly that he has chosen to write upon topics which concern matters of the greatest political and public importance. Scorning the themes of mythology or history and the subject- matter of the professional writers of forensic speeches, he preferred to devote his attention to subjects on which he could give advice which he regarded as beneficial to his own city and to the rest of the Greeks, while not denying that he sought to dress his themes in a rich and profuse style which was designed to win the approbation of his audience. Thus he says at the beginning of Panegyrikos, "I have singled out as the highest kind of oratory that which deals with the greatest affairs and, while best displaying the ability of those who speak, brings most profit to those who hear; and this oration is of that character” (4.4), while in his final work Panathenaikos he reflects thus: “I .... devoted my own efforts to giving advice on the true interests of Athens and of the rest of the Hellenes” and “since I was barred from public life I took refuge in study and work and writing down my thoughts, choosing as my field, not petty matters nor private contracts, nor the things about which the other orators prate, but the affairs of Hellas and of kings and of states" (12.2, 11). In Philippos. with its extended epistolary form, Isokrates allows himself a degree of autobiographical comment: he professes to disappointment that the advice which he had given many years before, in Panegyrikos. had not been followed, but affirms that this will not deter him from offering similar advice to Philip, and he

acknowledges that those who would “further some practical purpose and who think that they have hit upon some plan for the common good" must convince someone who is capable of putting the advice into effect (5

9

-

13

)-

Still speaking in a ‘confidential* manner, he tells Philip of the initial shock felt among his friends when he announced that he proposed to send Philip a discourse whose aim was neither epideiktic nor enkomiastic, but related to practical policies (5-17): however, after they had been granted a

a

circumstances (see 4.5-6), but it is significant that many years later in Antidosis (353) Isokrates no longer claims any topicality of the advice given in his first political discourse; instead, he sees it as a work which glorifies the Athenians, their city and their ancestors (1

5

.

6

1-62), whereas he does cite the much more recent discourse On the Peace (355) as a work of topical relevance in which he criticizes current Athenian policy and counsels an alternative policy (1

5

.

63

-

65

). It would be perverse to question, or to ignore, Isokrates' sincerity in all of this, and to dismiss as immaterial the internal evidence from Isokrates’ works which indicate that these discourses were written to offer serious political comment and advice. The historical settings of these discourses have been likened to those of the Platonic dialogues, and the emphasis of the works has been declared to be found in their ethical messages.i It is true that in antiquity Isokrates was remembered more for his style and artistry and for the moral benefit to be gained from reading his works than for the political advice contained in them;1 2 however, that does not preclude the possibility that the works were written with a serious political purpose and context; I have in fact just suggested that one can perceive a change in Isokrates’ own attitude to Panegyrikos between the time at which it was written and his reflections on the work almost

30

years later. To appeal again to Antidosis: Isokrates declares there a clear moralizing purpose in his publications (remembering that he is not here confining himself to the five political discourses so far published), when he speaks of having devoted his life to urging his fellow- Athenians to lead the Greeks in a morally better and juster manner (15 66); also, in introducing a passage from To Nikokles, he remarks that all his speeches (logoi) are directed towards virtue and justice (15.67). However, although he admits that eloquence is rightly used in praise of the virtue and achievements of one's ancestors, as he had shown in Panegyrikos. he also emphasizes that Panegyrikos was a political discourse relevant to the state (15-76-77: eneira t!$ [Xoyo$] av noXiTWWTepos rod paXAov npenccv t noXex ktA.),

and so too in his other works he professes to discourse upon matters of advantage to Athens and to the rest of Greece (15.76-60).

1 Harding. "Purpose", pp.142,148 (for a v ie v o f Isokrates as a moralizing sophist in the Sokratic tradition Harding refers Ip.142, n 27 ] to a dissertation t>y A. Bloom The Political Philosophy o f Isokrates [Univ. of Chicago, 19551 a ’vork to v h ic h I have not had access); see also E. Rummel, "Isocrates* Ideal of Rhetoric: Criteria of Evaluation“, CJ 75 (1979), 25-35; cf„ h o w v e r , Baynes ("Isocrates", pp,160ff.), ’S'ho casts doubt upon even an ethical consistency in the discourses.

The second observation to be drawn from Isokrates' own statements concerns the position of his political views and advice in his paedagogical instruction. Isokrates saw himself as training young men to be capable of taking an intelligent interest in the business of the state: in so doing he set his purpose against that of the sophists, contrasting the two:

I maintain also that if you compare me vith those vho profess to turn men to a

life of temperance and justice, you ’fill find that my teaching is more true and more profitable than theirs. For they exhort their follo’vers to a kind of virtue and visdom vhich is ignored by the rest of the vorld and is disputed among

themselves; I, to a kind vhich is recognized by all. They, again, are satisfied if through the prestige of their names they can drav a number of pupils into their society; I, you vill find, have never invited any person to foliov me, but

endeavour to persuade the vhole state to pursue a policy from vhich the

Athenians ’fill become prosperous themselves, and at the same time deliver the

rest of the Hellenes from their present ills. (15.84-85)

It is also clear that the subject-matter which he regarded as suitable for his rhetorical talents was similarly appropriate for the attention of his pupils

(see 15-276). However, it is not demonstrable from what he says in the defence of his teaching in either Antidosis or in the partially-extant Against the Sophists that he sought to advocate to his pupils a particular political ideology.1 Doubtless his pupils would have been aware of his political sympathies and of his views on particular policies of Athens and the other Greek states and it seems quite likely that Isokrates discussed such matters with his pupils; but the argument in Antidosis does not encourage a belief that he sought to indoctrinate his pupils in the particular solutions to contemporary political issues such as we find presented in his political discourses. Isokrates alleges that his critics expected his school to produce an identical succession of professional rhetors (15.200). However, his own claim was more modest; while he envisaged that a few among his pupils would become public figures, he expected the great majority to live as private citizens who had nevertheless acquired from his teaching greater sophistication in social discourse, an ability to judge arguments more

acutely and more capable of giving counsel in public debate; in short, good, honourable and intelligent citizens (15 201-204, 220, 241, 253-257, 276,

JCf. P. Harding, “Androtion's Political Career'’, Historia 25 (1976), 188: “the idea

261-262).1 The message of Antidosis does not support a view of education as a means of political indoctrination: quite the contrary. Isokrates denies

that men can achieve a form of knowledge which will invest their actions and words with the certainty of rightness; wisdom consists in the ability to arrive more often than not at the best conclusion on the basis of sound

opinion (see 15-271; cf. 15-164).2

As w e shall see, the observations, comments and advice enclosed in these six Isokratean discourses have been used by historians of the fourth century B. C. according as to what particular opinion each historian has held

as to Isokrates* purpose in composing the works and also as to what value

has been granted to Isokrates* political judgment; nor are these the only contentious issues involved in these discourses: the dates of composition, the intended audience, the very interpretation of the contents of the

discourses are all matters which, in varying degrees, are controversial. The

works have been used to deduce a line of political thought, either

individual or representative, aimed at meeting some of the most pressing

problems of the age;3 they have been treated as a series of individual statements - not always well-understood - directly related to the

circumstances in which they are set; they have also been used as a general pool of evidence from which to collect data pertaining to the social and

1 Isokrates regarded the ingredients for success in any field of endeavour, including the art of speaking, as three-fold: natural ability, the training to acquire appropriate knowledge, and the practice in exercising both talent and knowledge (15-187; cf. 13.14-15); of the three the first was for Isokrates the critical factor, while even those of lesser talent may achieve a level of success through experience and practice, so that the teacher, by supplementing these other two ingredients of talent and experience with theoretical knowledge and training, ranks quite modestly (15-185,189-192). Nor is it accurate to say that Isokrates' education wras aimed at the simple development of oratorical skills; his ultimate aims were to instil the basis of a moral goodness and a practical wisdom (DL. Clark [Rhetoric in Greco-Roman

Education (New York, 1957), p.52 ] notes: “Isocrates preferred to call himself a philosopher rather than a sophist or rhetorician, and his school a school of philosophy“).

2Isokrates' portrait in Panathenaikos (12.30-32) of the educated person is consistent with this.

economic circumstances of the period.1 Cautionary notes have also been sounded: thus Wendland regarded Isokrates as one of the most important

sources for the history of the fourth century B. C., but noted that the evidence was not easy to use;2 Sealey, in a general history of the classical Greek world, expresses a similar reservation^ but appears largely to

disdain the discourses as evidence: for in Part III, which deals with the

period from 3Ö7/6-33& Isokrates is omitted from the introductory list of Athenian orators, whose works are “a rich source for this period",4 and the only reference in the text itself to any of the six discourses involves

Plataikos, where Isokrates’ testimony is invoked in a most tentative fashion

to arbitrate in a chronological discrepancy between Xenophon and Diodoros.5

It is the intention of this thesis to re-examine each of these political discourses, and so to define and to explain the thrust of Isokrates'

arguments in each; in seeking to explain Isokrates' arguments and

proposals consideration will be given to the historical background against which Isokrates' view s and advice are set. From this study it is hoped that

sufficient evidence can be assembled to enable the question of Isokrates' political perspicacity to be adjudged, and thus a reappraisal of the historical worth of these discourses.

^ o r this last see A. Fuks, "Isokrates and the Social-Economic Situation in Greece", Ancient Society 3 (1972), 17-44 (= A. Fuks, Social Conflict in Ancient Greece [Leiden, 19841 ,pp .52-79); cf. also A. Fuks, 'Patterns and Types of Social-Economic Revolution: in Greece from the Fourth to the Second Century B.C.". Ancient Society 5 (1974), 64-63 (also reprinted in Social Conflict, pp 22-23). For a similar attempt to elucidate certain aspects of fourth cen tu ry Athenian politics, using the evidence of Isokrates and other fourth cen tu ry orators, see S. Perlm an,'The Politicians in the Athenian Democracy of the Fourth Century", Athenaeum 41 (1963),

327-355-. 2p327-355-. Vendland, Beiträge zu athenischen Politik und Publicistik des vierten lahrhunderts: I. König Philippos und Isokrates, Nachrichten von der königlichen Gesellschaft der V issenschaften zu Göttingen, Philol.-hist. Klasse (Berlin, 1910), p.125.

3r. Sealey (HGCS, p.6 [on the sources available for the early period of Greek

history, down to 479 ]) notes of Isokrates: "Several of his extant speeches were

composed on a cu rren t or recent event and 'were probably intended for circulation in w riting. These speeches can be useful sources for the state of opinion at the time of composition, but some of them are difficult to interpret."

4 Ibid., p.402.

This study begins from the assumption that what Isokrates has to say, either in the discourses themselves or in other writings, about his purpose in these works is to be treated seriously. It also seeks to treat each discourse as a separate unity, recognizing the fact that there were substantial lapses of time between most of the compositions. It recognizes Isokrates' own admission that he took no active part in politics, in the sense that Demosthenes or Aischines did, but does not assume that, because Isokrates operated a school at Athens, he was thereby either a political theorist or that, whatever political views he may have held over a period of forty-two years, it was these which were necessarily paramount in what he had to say on the comparatively rare occasions when he committed his views to public scrutiny. Finally, it is not assumed that Isokrates can be treated as a straightforward historical source;1 although not an active politician, he could, and did, mingle with men of affairs, and, as a teacher of the politician's art of rhetoric, he could be selective in choosing his facts, and could alter the stance which he adopted towards some facts to suit the current political mood or his argument; similarly, like a practising

politician, he would have needed to take into account the current opinions and public mood, so that it would be against that background that he would frame his arguments, if they were to possess any credibility.2

^The use of Isokrates* discourses as evidence for the history of events before the time at vh ich each is set is outside the scope of this thesis; it is a subject vh ich has received considerable attention; for a recent study of the subject, v ith

bibliography of the topic, see CD. Hamilton, “Greek Rhetoric and History: the Case of Isocrates“ in Arktouros; Hellenic Studies presented to Bernard M. ¥ . Knox on the occasion of his 65th birthday, ed. G. V. Boirersock et al.(Berlin, Nev York 1979), pp290-298. For historical events before his ovn lifetime Isokrates vould not rate very highly as a source, but for events v h ich occurred during his adult lifetime he is considerably more reliable, although allotrance must still be made for rhetorical interpretation (see Laistner, Isocrates De Pace and Philippus, p24).

Chapter 1: Paaeqvirtuos

The Panegyrikos signifies the debut of Isokrates as an adviser on the political affairs of his time. The purpose of the work is explained in the prooimion: "I have come [before you]1 to give my counsels on the war against the barbarians and on concord among ourselves." (4.3). Isokrates

himself admits at the beginning of the work that in urging a panhellenic war against Persia and the establishment of homonoia among the poleis. he is not advancing a novel theme (4.3: cf.4.15). The assumption that the barbarians, more particularly the Persians, were the natural enemy for all Greeks2 * had led other Greek orators to attem pt to rally their compatriots against the common foe as a desirable alternative to the continual

squabbling and intermittent warfare which preoccupied the city-states. Two such appeals are known to us: in his Olympikos, a work of uncertain date,3 Gorgias brought together, before the panhellenic gathering which attended the Olympic festival, the composite themes of reconciliation among the Greeks and a united war against the barbarians; he also

presented the latter theme to the Athenians a t their Panathenaic festival, though there he tactfully omitted the advice about establishing harmonious relations among the Greeks, since the Athenians were enthusiastic for empire.4 The Athenian metic Lysias also addressed the Greeks assembled

11 have bracketed these Trords since they do not appear in the text. The use of the second person in translating this particular speech is misleading (see belov.p.18).

2See Gorg. fr. B 3b (D.-K); Plat. Menex. 242d; Rep. 470c. There ,vere

occasionally dissenters, but this vas undoubtedly a popular Greek attitude tovards the Persians (cf. V.K.C. Guthrie, The Sophists [Cambridge 1971! p.162; also H. Diller, “Die Hellenen-Bar baren Antithese im Zeitalter der Perser kriege", in Grecs et Barbares. Entretiens sur l'antiquite classique, Tome VIII [Vandoeuvres-Geneve 19611 pp.37-82, and 0. Reverdin, "Crise spirituelle et evasion", pp.83-120 of the same volume). See also belov, pp. 55-70.

^392 B.C. according to Blass (AB, I2, p. 59), vh o is folioved by Kessler (Isok.u.d. t>anh. Idee, p.7) and K. J. Beloch (Griechische Geschichte. 2nd. ed. [Leipzig and Berlin 19221 III2. 1.521, n.3). Hovever, Ed. Meyer (Geschichte des Altertums, 4th. ed.

[Stuttgart 19581 Vol. V, p.333) puts it in 408 B.C.

at Olympia: in his Olympiakos, probably delivered in 364,i he lamented the sorry state of current affairs amongst the Greeks and urged them to join

together in seeking to cast off the yoke of oppression which had been put upon them by the Persian king and by Dionysios I, tyrant of Syracuse.

The title of the Panegyrikos. as well as its theme, indicates it to be a

composition in the tradition of the public orations which were accustomed to be delivered by orators at the great panhellenic festivals (panegyreis) of the Greeks, as well as in the competitive presentations which took place as

part of the Panathenaic festival.* 2 3 The work was clearly known from the

outset as the logos panegyrikos. for Isokrates himself referred to it by this name in several later works (cf. 5 9, 64; 12.172; Hp.3-6).3 Nevertheless, the choice of title has a certain indefiniteness about the supposed venue, which

distinguishes it from the orations delivered at Olympia by Gorgias and Lysias, and, indeed, from the last of Isokrates own major works, the

Panathenaikos.

An attempt was made to date the publication of Panegyrikos to a time quite soon after the King's Peace (early 366), probably in 365,4 but it

^rote's arguments (History of Greece, neved. [London 19071 Vol. VIII, p. 70) for 384, against Diodoros’ dating of 388 (cf.14.109.3), are convincing and have

generally been accepted.

^Eor the appearance of the sophists at these festivals see Guthrie, The Sophists. p.42f., vhere the panhellenic mood of the national festivals is noted (for the duration of vhich a sacred truce vas proclaimed). At the Panathenaia the prepared speeches vere certainly agonistic (see Isok. 4.45), end despite Isokrates’ lamentations about the failure to recognize intellectual skill at the national festivals (4.1-2), a fragment of Gorgias may suggest that there too productions vere competitive, unless Gorgias' language is metaphorical (fr. B8 [D.-K I 6 yap toiXoyoy icocSanep toidpyypa to

’OXvpmaoi raAeL pev tövpwXopevov, ore^ctvoT 8e tovSwapevov: cf. Plat. Hipp.Min .364a,

and see Guthrie, The Sophists, pp.43, vho believes that the recitations by the Sophists at Olympia and else vhere vere agonistic).

3 It retained this title thereafter in antiquity (see Arist. Rhet. 1408b 16; Longin. de Sublim. 42).

4¥ . H. Engel, De tempore quo divulgatus sit Isocratis Panegyricus (Stargard 1861). Engel's argument is tvo-fold, based upon a dating of the Kyprian Var to 394/3- 385/4 (cf. belov, p.l5f ) and upon an interpretation of the speech in vhich he regards as anachronistic the vhole section in vhich Sparta is severely criticized (viz. 4.125-131: see Engel, pp,18ff.). He therefore has to postulate a later edition of the speech in

vhich the criticism of Sparta, vith the references to events of the later 380s, vas added; cf. R. Rauchenstein, Ausgevählte Reden des Isokrates, 6th. ed. rev. K.

Münscher (Berlin 1908), pp29-31: Münscher rejects Engel's thesis, vhich had been accepted in earlier editions by Rauchenstein; cf. also Blass AB, Il2, pp. 252-255, vho follovs Engel but vho does not, hovever, believe that an earlier version vas

is now generally agreed that the work, as we have it was published late in 361 or sometime in 360.1 References within the speech to recent and contemporary events establish as much: the Spartans, it is said, have perpetrated the break-up (dioikismos) of Mantineia; they have seized and occupied the Kadmeia at Thebes, and the sieges of Olynthos and Phleious are in progress (4.126). The Spartan campaign against Olynthos probably began in the autumn of 362, while the siege of Phleious, which Xenophon tells us lasted twenty months (5-3-2 5), had begun in summer 361, shortly after the Spartan king Agesipolis had been sent to lead the operations against Olynthos (Xen. 5 3-6ff.; cf. D.S. 15.22.2ff.); Diodor os records the capitulation of the Olynthians under the year 360/379 (15-23-3), and Xenophon passes straight on in his narrative from the surrender of the Phleiasians to that of the Olynthians (5 3-25-26), and from that to an account of the liberation of Thebes (late in 379).2 On this basis the

publication of Panegynkos belongs to some time between the latter part of 361 and the beginning of 379.

Further definition seems to be offered by another contemporary reference: that which concerns events in the war between the Persians and the rebel Evagoras, ruler of Salamis on Cyprus. According to Isokrates, Evagoras is now ruler only of Salamis; he has been given up to the Persians by the terms of the treaty (i.e. the King's Peace); he has already suffered a naval defeat, and yet the attempts of the Persian king to subdue this rebel have so far lasted six years without being brought to a successful resolution for the King (4 141). The war between Evagoras and the King, which

Isokrates and Diodoros agree to have lasted ten years (Isok. 9.64; D.S.

15.92) and whose outbreak is recorded by Diodoros in the year 391/390

643ff.; reprinted in Isokrates. ed. F. Seek (Darmstadt 19761 pp.1-18) has argued convincingly against a publication of Panegynkos before 381/380.

xSo, e g.: V. Tudeich, Kleinasiatische Studien: Untersuchungen zur griechisch- t>ersischen Geschichte des IV ,lhts. v. Chr. (Marburg 1892), 137-143; Drerup,

"Epikritisches“, pp. 636ff.; Blass, AB,. II, p. 232; Mathieu, Idees. p.67; Jebb. AO, II, p.147; E. Buchner, Der Panegvrikos des Isokrates (Viesbaden 1938), p.132; Bringm ann, Studien. t>.3Q; T.T.B. Ryder. Koine Eirene: General Peace and Local Independence in Ancient Greece (Oxford 1963), P-44, n.8.

(14.96. Iff .),1 should thus have been concluded in 3 6 2 /1 .2

Given the title, the literary tradition associated with the theme, and the contemporary references within the work, it has been suggested that we can date the publication of Panegyrikos even more precisely. 360 was an Olympic year, and it has therefore been tempting to assume that the

publication of this discourse should be identified with the time of the Olympic festival of that year; 3 that is to say midsummer 360.4 If this assumption were true, then it might be that the reference to the Kyprian

War as still being in progress was an anachronism; but, given our

uncertainty as to when precisely that war ended, there may have been an

alteration in the status quo which came about too late for the point to have been corrected, or news of Evagoras' final settlem ent with the King may not have reached Athens before the time when the work was published;

certainly it seems unnecessary to resort to the ingenious explanation

^ h i s date for the commencement of this w a r is generally accepted, see E.A. Costa, "Evagoras I and the Persians, ca.411 to 391 B.C.", Historia 23 (1974), 53.

^ h e r e is a contradiction in Diodoros' dating of this v a r . It is said to have begun in 391 /390 (14.98.Iff.); the sea-battle off Kition is n arrated under the events of 386 (15.2.Iff ), and the conclusion of the v a r is placed in 385 05-8.Iff.); hovever, the v a r is also said to have lasted almost 10 years (15-92). Judeich (Klein. Stud., pp.l 19ff.) argued against earlier attempts to date the v a r eith er to 394-385 or to 386-377, and historians since have accepted the combined evidence of Isokrates and Diodoros for a date from 391 /390 to 381 or 380. Judeich him self dated the conclusion to 381 but others, not w h i n g to perm it too great a gap between publication of Isokrates’ Panegyrikos (according to v h ic h the v a r has not yet been concluded) and the end of the w , have opted for 380 (cf. Beloch, (HL III2- 1.98 & III2. 2 .227f.; Grote, HG., VIII, p. 21, n.4); of course, this is contingent upon the time at v h ic h , during the sieges of Olynthos and Phleious Panegyrikos vas completed. The observation in Paneg yrikos that the Kyprian Var had been in progress for 6 years (4.141) is com prehensible on the understanding that Artaxerxes’ attentions v e re not turned in fu ll force upon Evagoras until the establishment of the King’s Peace (cf. Judeich, Klein. Stud., p.122, n . l ). For recent argum ent in favour of dating the Kyprian V ar from 390-381 /0, and use of Isokrates’ Panegyrikos in doing this, see C.J. Tuplin, "Lysias XIX, The Cypriot V ar and Thrasyboulos' Naval Expedition", Philol 127 (1983), 170-186.

Sphilostratos (VitSoph . 505) says the v o rk v as delivered at th e Olympic Festival; cf. Menandros, p.391 (in L. Spengel led. I Rhetores Graeci [Lipsiae 1853- 1856D. Among modems see Jebb, AO, II, p.150; Blass, AB, II. P.251; Grote, HG, VIII, pp. 41,73; Mathieu, Les Idees. t>.67: Jaeger, Paideia. Ill, p.74; Dobson. The Greek Orators (London 1919), p.144; Buchner, Panegyrikos. p.152.

4There is uncertainty about the precise date (or dates) for th e Olympian festival: A I. Samuel (Greek and Roman Chronolog y: calendars and years in Classical anti<iuity [Munich 19721 pp.191-194) presents the limited and fa r from certain

offered by Mathieu, who adopts 361/360 as the date for the end of that war: for Mathieu explained the alleged anachronism as a deliberate

endeavour by Isokrates to signify that he did not regard Evagoras as truly beaten and to portray him, by implication, as a potential ally of any who would take up arms against the Persians.1 However, such subtlety was neither necessary nor appropriate to Isokrates' purpose; if he had truly wished that his audience should still see in Evagoras a potential ally, despite his recent surrender, he would surely have said so explicitly; it is ' difficult to see what was to be gained by such a pretence. Alternatively, it

has been suggested that the putative setting of the work is the Athenian Panathenaika.2 * Such attempted precision about the work's moment of publication is not justified by the evidence; furthermore, such precise definition is misleading.

In several respects Panegyrikos is notably unspecific. To start with the title itself: 'panegyrist was the word given to a national festival (cf. Isok. 6.95) and a logos panegyrikos could certainly refer to an oration intended for any of the major Greek festivals (cf. Isok. 4.1; 5.13; 15.147). However, to entitle a work Panegyrikos fails to associate it clearly with any specific festival; Panathenaikos would have linked the work to the

Athenian festival or Olympikos or Qlympiakos to that of the panhellenic gathering due to be held once again in 360.3 it could be argued that Isokrates sought a title which would distinguish his work from those of Gorgias and Lysias, and possibly others, which had preceded. However, given the tradition of such festival orations by this time, it is even possible that there were other orations with the title Olympikos (or Qlympiakos): such a concern of itself does not seem sufficient to justify the avoidance of the more specific title.4

Mathieu, Les I dees, p. 67f.: the explanation is based upon Diodoros' account of the desultory conclusion to the var, vh ich had not ended in Evagoras' total

humiliation (15-82-3,9.1-2).

2See L. Preller, Demeter und Persephone (Hamburg 1837), p.71, n.32; contra, see 0. Schneider, Isocrates ausg evahlte Reden, 3rd. ed. (Leipzig 1886), Bd.2, p2 & Mathieu, Les Idees. pp .65-66.

3Isokrates ’was to give his last major vork the title Panathenaikos.

la

Similarly the setting is vague.1 Isocrates' works were intended for publication, not for delivery,2 but we should compare the fictitious setting of an Athenian assembly, as used in On the Peace and Areopagitikos, with that of the Panegyrikos: instructive also in this respect is comparison with Gorgias' and Lysias* speeches which were composed for delivery at

Olympic festivals. The audience' in On the Peace is addressed throughout the oration in the second person and a local evdaSa is used in the opening sentence (cf. also 6.2: fpconev yap ^XTimacovrec), while in Areopagitikos the second person is also used consistently and a t the conclusion the ’audience' are invited to vote on "what is best for Athens" (7.64). In his Qlympikos Gorgias addressed his audience with the words rMvSpe$ (D.-K. Fr. B7). Lysias similarly apostrophizes his audience at Olympia and, in the same opening sentence, refers to the occasion with the demonstrative phrase TovSe tov

dywva (Lys. 33-0; in the prooimion Lysias commends Herakles as the founder of this festival, and by use of the first person the orator identifies himself from the outset with his panhellenic audience.3 Isokrates, on the other hand, does not apostrophize his audience at the beginning of

Panegyrikos, and nowhere in the oration does he speak to his 'audience' in the second person. In contrast to Lysias, Isokrates opens with a reflective statement, addressed to no-one in particular, and he does not use any phrase or statement which is directed at the apparent occasion (contrast the prooimion of On the Peace). Like Lysias, Isokrates refers to the founders of festivals, but the observation is a general one; the eulogistic reference by Lysias to the legendary founder of the Olympic festival is matched in Isokrates by a contemplative and critical remark, as he

deplores the fact that these panhellenic occasions glorify athletic prowess but fail to honour intellectual talent and effort (4.1-2: note the use of the plural roc navTr/?)p€ic at 4.1). It is, indeed, a somewhat studied opening by Isokrates when compared with Lysias' treatm ent of the theme. In fact, the first explicit reference to an audience does not occur until after this opening reflection, and then the first-person plural is used in a slightly oblique way:

ntoco c&#oyAewo.w (n.b. no indirect object v\iiv) nepl re ro£> noXeuoy row npoc rove

JSee H. Li. Hudson-¥illiams, "Isocrates end Recitations", pp. 68-69.

2See above, p. If.

throughout the work to use the first-person plural to refer either to the Athenians or to the Greeks as a whole (see below), but the use of the

second-person plural to address his audience, as one would expect in a genuine deliberative speech, or even in one where the fiction was being fully maintained, is entirely neglected. Apart from the proem, the other

place in a deliberative speech where explicit engagement between orator

and audience would be expected is the exordium: but Isokrates offers little in terms of a setting, merely exhorting his audience, whom he designates as "listeners" (tapoaTcd: 4.166), to go away and seek either to exert influence upon men of political influence and power or to promulgate his ideas by

making speeches themselves.1

If we are to envisage an Olympic festival audience, fictitious or otherwise, then we should ask how the use of the first-person plural

operates throughout the speech; for it is employed in a dual capacity, either to refer to "we Athenians" or to "we Greeks". It has been observed that, on the whole, in the epideiktic earlier section of Panegyrikos the first-person plural refers to "we Athenians", whereas in the next section, where the campaign against Persia is advocated, "we" means "we Greeks“;2 *

however, such a distinction cannot be made absolutely, although the

observation does possess general validity;3 often the context makes it clear

when "we" is being confined to “we Athenians" (with rj itoXv? rjpo»' or fj T^erepa

ttoAis appearing at the start of a passage), but Isokrates does at times slide

with almost bewildering ease from the one application of the first-person plural to the other.4 The use, then, of the first-person plural in Panegyrikos

translators may contribute more to the setting than the text warrants: e g. G. Norlin (Isocrates [Loeb ed., Vol. 11 translates the vords from 4.3 (quoted above) “I have come before you to give my counsels etc.“; in the exordium Norlin contributes an unjustified second-person to the text at 4.187, vhere he renders avroi>$ odv xpT} cwßiopav ooTft av eyßaipovtac rvxotpev as ’Therefore you must come my aid and try to picture to yourselves vhat vast prosperity v e should attain ...“; but i*pd$ cannot be understood vith avrovg: the pronoun vh ich must be understood in this impersonal construction is given the 1st-person plurals v h ic h foliov in the subordinate clauses; the sentence should begin "Therefore v e must examine together ...".

2Buchner, Panegyrikos, p.7.

3Ibid., pp.61, n.l & 63, n.5. (or the adj. T^perepo^) does refer at times vith in the epideiktic section to all the Greeks (cf. 4.34-37,43-44,48 (e<$ypev ] and [probably 1 at 4.47,98); the converse is also true.

4As, e.£. at 426: oow 6e Töi$ oXXoi^ dyafitow canoi yevoyapev, o£tü)£ wjoxXXujt’

reflects not so much a fictitious audience as the fact that in the oration Isokrates is associating himself with his own city-state in making out a case for a renewal of her influence among the Greeks, but he is also embracing all the Greeks in his scheme for a war against the Persians.

There is another difficulty with any interpretation of Panegyrikos which seeks to regard the work as either a genuine panegyric oration or as a composition with this fictitious setting. At the start of the discourse

Isokrates notes that others have treated the theme of a panhellenic war against the barbarians, but he proclaims that he is not daunted from essaying to write upon the subject, since, among other reasons: "I hope to rise so far superior to them that it will seem as if no word had ever been spoken by my rivals upon this subject" (4.4: cf. 4.10, 12-14). This is all to be expected, but what are we to make of the concluding remarks, where Isokrates admits that he has changed his mind about those early, self- confident statements, and where he now ’confesses* * to have failed to treat his theme in a worthy manner: he says that he has not risen to the

magnitude of the theme, that he has omitted points which he had intended to make. He therefore invites his listeners to come to his aid: the men of action should act themselves to effect a reconciliation between Athens and Sparta, while the orators should cease wasting their efforts upon court- work or with compositions upon trivial themes and should “consider how better than me they will speak upon the same subject" (4.167-166). To profess modesty about one’s own achievement at the end of a speech was a rhetorical commonplace and need not in itself be regarded as incompatible with the assertions at the opening of this work.1 What is remarkable is that all the 'confession' is followed by an appeal to other orators to take up the theme. This ending could possibly be regarded as a piece of deliberate mock-humility and an extremely arrogant casting-down of the gauntlet to others to surpass him. The final words would then take on a particularly savage point; for the reference to other orators as "men who promise great

eypfjootiev yap ayrfjv ov jiovov to»' np6$ tovnoXepov lav^vuv aAAa wd t% aXXTft

K aracacE i% , ev 5 raroucoSuev lad jjlc8 noXvreyojie0a lad 8i fjv 4f|v 8waue8a, oyeSov duaor^

avrxav 0&3OV (not on easy passage to translate due to the zeugma of avrtav with both tw iciv&nw and raTaoKR%: see J. E. Sandys. Isocrates. Ad Detnonicum et Panegvricus. new ed., [London 18971 ad loc.); in this passage the first-person as far as the

semicolon must refer to the Athenians, but thereafter, if Isokrates’ point (i.e. the Athenians’ contribution to "the rest of the ’world” [toi$ aXXoi$ D is to have meaning, the first-person must now mean “we Greeks".

things” but who "waste their time on little things", and the suggestion that his rivals are impoverished (4.1691) would be particularly insulting, since Isokrates had initially proclaimed his intention to write definitively upon the subject. Such insincerity and such an aggressive provocation of his rivals seems to harmonize ill with the general theme and tone of the work. It might also be noted that a similar exhortation to others to turn their attentions to the theme which he has just handled occurs at the end of On the Peace (6.14S) and in Philippos (565). In short, this conclusion does not ring true as being consistent with a genuine or properly fictitious panegyric oration, nor does it sit comfortably with the writer's earlier claims that he will provide a definitive treatm ent of the theme.

Hudson-Williams revealed the true audience for whom Panegyrikos was intended, when he concluded that the “listeners" mentioned at the end of the work were the real audience, and that these “listeners" were

Athenian, although it may be supposed that a wider circulation was also intended.2 Such a view is supported by Isokrates' own testimony many years later, when in Philippos he says, in explanation of why he has turned to Philip rather than to the Athenians in his search for a leader who will conduct a war against the Persians: “In truth, (however) it will be found that I turned to Athens first of all and endeavoured to win her over to this cause with all the earnestness of which my nature is capable, but when I perceived that she cared less for what I said than for the ravings of the platform orators, I gave her up, although I did not abandon my efforts"

(5.129). But if Isokrates in Panegyrikos addressed himself to the Athenians we should ask: to which Athenians? and, what was he saying to them? and, why was he saying it?

Since in the Panegyrikos Isokrates did not elect to write a speech which adopts the form of a deliberative address before the Athenian assembly (as he was later to do in On the Peace and Areopagitikos) and since the work does not seem to be presented as a convincing imitation of an oration which is being delivered before a panhellenic festival gathering, we must conclude that the work, as it was published, was intended to be received by a reading public at Athens, and possibly by similarly well- educated men in other states. Certainly, the two groups which are detailed among the envisaged audience are politicians and advocates (4.166: tov$ pev

1 Isokrates else v h ere taunts his rhetorician-rivals as being impecunious: c f. 11.1; 13-4,7.